blueovalz

Well, the turbo stubs are the same size as the 240 stubs, spline wise, so I can't imagine the NA being smaller, so my guess is the stubs are the same.

It all depends on the compression ratio, and cam dynamics, as well as cranking rpm and if a little oil is used in each cylinder to help seal the rings. All in all, these readings sound fine. My 10.5:1 with a nice came runs about 120 to 125.

Those nuts accept 3/8" bolts that hold exhaust pipe hangers. Then the crossbar between the uprights on the back of the rear control arm bushings also has to nuts welded to it to hold exhaust hangers too. Terry

There is a ton of info on this, so you need to do a "search" on rear disc brakes, CV half shafts, etc. All of the mods you have listed have been done in different ways by many of our members. The answer to your question is a very broad one, and this info will help. Then if you have any specific questions that are not archived, then feel free to ask. Terry

One more note, for an acurate weight, the height of the scale (the surface that the tires rest on) must also be added under the tires to the other side of the car so that the car is essentially level when you take your readings. Terry

Very similar to mine too. Mine started out 1140/1110 for a 50.6/49.4 F/R distribution (without driver in race trim). But add the same size and heavier street tires (front and rear) and wheels, a front lip, headlights, fans, wiring, and body mods to make it bolt on probably get it to more like 1210/1130 for a 51.7/48.3 F/R.

SCCA has a good line on keeping the hoses out of the way of the PP, and is essentially the same thing I did this second time. I also found that a small amount of torsional load (twist load) on the hoses will cause them to curve. With the correct twist direction, you can get the hoses to curve away from the PP prior to exiting out the holes in the bellhousing. I was lucky in the fact that the local speed shop had all the Aeroquip fittings and hoses (#4) to make new lines, being I had a hell of a time trying to get Mcloed on the phone. Terry

For future reference, just a post for anybody wanting to get an idea of what a hydraulic throw-out bearing looks like and it's set-up on a T-5. Also. I have posted photos of a fairly simple driveshaft adapter to mate an all Ford driveshaft onto the Datsun propeller shaft: http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=1541023 Look under T-5 swap and driveshaft adapter. These are new photos I took when I had to pull the tranny last month for some repair work to the hydraulic SS braided lines going to the throw-out bearing. Terry

Also, if you have a smaller opening no larger than about 6" on one side, you can use the expanded aluminum used for gutter guards. It comes in rolls or in 3' pieces at Home Depot too.

Drewz, what is your choice on the carbs. Just curious 'cause I thought that if I was to ever get these back on top, that I would do something different in the size of the carbs or just go and purchase new ones. Terry

I've got the F28 (Ford version) of this intake, and for years loved the "look" of 8 barrels under the hood. Finally rational thinking took over and I went back to the single four, which has worked better than this or the 2 X 4 ram air that I had. This intake will require the Carters on it.

I use one of those white "ball" shifter handles mounted on a rod that I made out of 3/8" aluminum sheet cut kinda like a dog leg 5" long and about 3/4" wide at the base but narrowing to about 3/8" at the top where I threaded it, and directly bolted onto the stub comming out of the tranny. I never realized how precise the T-5 shift feel could be once all the rubber mounting grommets were not used. Terry

To add to the above, my 8 pointer added close to 100 lbs. With the engine and tranny mounted solidly at 6 points to the unibody to act as a "spine" from front crossember to the middle of the tunnel, and added triangulation at the front, a surprising amount of stiffness can be added to the car without the attendant 300 lb heavier body. Granted, the solid mounting is rarely desired, but it adds no weight.

That and/or the front mount is broke.

I have used the 1.125" and liked it, as well as the 1". I personally would not go any smaller than .875" and would choose the 1" instead, but this will be determined by your driving style. 5.5" is about 140mm wide. Man!; that seems small. I would be very leary of anything bigger than a 195, and even this may be a bit too wide. Terry

The 240 steel body is lighter than the 260 and 280. The requirements for the 5mph bumpers required a slightly thicker gauge steel in areas (if not the whole car). The weight difference you stated may be a little high. I believe that there is only about 300 lb difference in the steel, then add the much heavier bumpers (with attending shocks) and other misc stuff and the difference becomes a little larger. I've seen stress and fatique cracks on both 240 and 280 chassis', so from that point of view, I don't know that one would be any better than the other. Weight is a killer in performance because it affects EVERYTHING. Terry

Ross I believe is correct. Loss of fluid or pressure in one system (front or rear) will indeed affect the other system. Anybody that has had to bleed a system knows that until ALL (or both systems) are bled correctly, the entire brake system suffers. Yes, the braking ability is dimenished, but IMO still better than trying to stop from 40mph with only the emergency brake.

Pete, I don't know that this will be a big help or not, but thought I would share this with you. The cam I currently run in my car is an original Ford LeMans Cam. It has 252 degrees at .050, which sounds like a lot, but this cam was designed in the '60s for road racing applications, thus it has a very broad torque curve. I have swap it with 7 different cams from various manufacturers and I have always gone back to this cam (it's got to be over 35 years old now) because of the range of torque. The others were just too peaky. Before you make a decision, see if you can find out what the specs were on some of Chevy's old road racing engines (like they 302 they used in Trans Am racing) or some of the old competition Vette stuff before dated before that.

side glass I believe is tempered, and that makes it tough. I believe it can only be ground off, similar to a cutting wheel for metal. But it's a very slow process because any heat differential or build-up while removing this will chip or crack the glass. Water helps a lot on this, but specialized equipment is what is needed.

I'm wondering if you couldn't take the ground wire off the distributor, and instead touch it to a chassis ground (on and off to energize and de-energize the primary of the coil) to see if the secondary side (high voltage side) developes a high voltage spark to a gound, each time you break the contact to ground with the ground wire. This would at least tell you the coil is good. I finally went with an electronic ignition recently, but tried to avoid it simply because you can't trouble shoot them as easily as the points type, the olde fart that I am.

Salvage can range from $500-$700, and new can go to about 1K from what I've seen here in the great state of AR. I paid 1.1K for a WC brand new, no core charge.

I've got a '92 240SX that has undergone a lot of the brake and suspension upgrades that I did to the Z. With 160k on the motor (and it still runs like a dream), I am also wondering about a swap when the motor eventually does go south. The problem I see with a swap like this is the short bonnet compared to the Z. Instead of the engine being behind the front axle, it will be sitting over the front axle. Exhaust manifolds (headers) will have to deal with the strut towers. Also, this OEM 4 is a lot lighter than the L24 and thus a significant amount of front end weight will be added with this swap. Advantages, the steering rack and crossmember are under the motor, and for us front sump guys, this could help in the oil pan clearance issue that I had with my Z.

Billet Specialties made my wheels. http://www.billetspecialties.com/ Lots and Lots of designs, and they can make the wheels to just about any specification (hub hole size, pattern, width, diameter, offset) They even put some steel inserts for the lug nuts in them. My 17" X 11" (different offsets front and back) were $425 per wheel, and they are well made, with an excellent finish. Terry

I use plates front and back. A street version of the front plate resting on the OEM crossmember towers worked quite well (did not use the rear plate until I raced the car). It clears the way for lots of room on the side of the block.

Without re-measuring the dimensions, I think I tried this after swapping the fronts. If memory serves me correctly I did not do this because the inside diameter of the hat section was too small to fit over the rear hub. Secondly, and this can also answer another posting I saw, the bolt pattern for the rotor is of a smaller diameter than the wheel lug pattern, thus redrilling would be necessary for the fit (this is true of all rotors from '70-'85, even if one was ambitous enough to instead fit the rotor on the back side of the flange (i.e the front mounting method). The ZX rotor swap is just too easy, as is the Maxima front to rear swap. Mounting the front calipers on the back is a good idea (provided the rotor offset allows this without wheel interference), and no matter what you choose for a rotor on the back, caliper mounting modifications are always going to be a necessity, so choose your poison.